Good Morning Robert!
On 11/30/2016 10:42 PM, Robert Tiemann wrote:
On 11/30/2016 07:46 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Anyway, just peeked at the code and there is some retry logic
> for IPv6 there:
> So there already some magic involved. A simple approach like in the IPv6
> case is to keep rearming the timer (with a backoff) and retry IPv4.
Yes, I've also found that piece of code after doing some research.
Hence my question if there was any specific reason to avoid doing
repetitions for IPv4.
The online test was always only one shot IIRC. Probably because no one
dared to dive into the testing :)
After some more research I've found the Mer project
). Looks like they are maintaining their own
ConnMan fork. Their online check is quite different:
I see. Looks quite sane to me.
It's a shame they have chosen to put their fork into a
different repo. Cherry-picking is much harder than necessary this way.
Anyway, for a start, I've ported two of their very early patches
(82b6030  and e124243 ) to current master that add a simple
retry mechanism for IPv4. It works pretty well for my case, but as a
side effect the retries are also done if the WLAN password has been
entered incorrectly. The retries are done over a course of more than
10 minutes, and during that time it is not possible to perform a WLAN
site survey for some reason. I've tweaked it further to reduce that
time to 30 seconds with up to 5 retries, which seems to be OK. I will
test a bit more tomorrow.
Uff, yes those side effects need to addressed.
Now, I don't know the ConnMan source code very well (just dived
and I have no idea if the implementation in the Mer project is good or
bad. The general approach in their current version, however, looks
pretty good to me (I'm saying that without having it tested, though).
What do you think, should their changes be incorporated in the
official ConnMan tree? Or would another approach be preferable?
I think starting from the mer version is a good idea since theirs
changes are already in 'production'. I would really appreciate if you
could cook a nice patch (set) and send it for review and testing.